“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” – Ron Paul

“we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.” – Ron Paul

Randy Gray wasn’t fired for being in the KKK. He was fired because he’s not as devoutly racist as Ron Paul seems to be.

Ron Paul’s policies were attacked and dismantled by day three. But maybe you’re talking about his ‘newly revealed’ policies in those newsletters, do we need to spend more time discussing why Dr. Paul thinks that 95% of black men are criminals?

His policies have been sufficiently attacked. Many of us having been doing it for months. And the fact that the man had racist newsletters, has Neo-Nazi backers and supporters and had a man with links to the Ku Klux Klan with his campaign is pretty notable.

Its notable for those who dont ilke him or dont like his policies. No where has he shown that anything written in those newsletters, or anything any of his supporters says has ANY influence on any of his policies. For someone with a conservative leaning who doesnt like this whole Iraq debacle, who else are you supposed to support? The guy who wants us in Iraq forever or the guy who wants to steal all of the nations guns away from people? If there was a true conservative running, it would be a different story.

No where has he shown that anything written in those newsletters, or anything any of his supporters says has ANY influence on any of his policies. For someone with a conservative leaning who doesnt like this whole Iraq debacle, who else are you supposed to support? The guy who wants us in Iraq forever or the guy who wants to steal all of the nations guns away from people? If there was a true conservative running, it would be a different story.

muyoso on January 31, 2008 at 7:04 PM

Who do you vote for? The less of the evils. The racist, conspiracy-theorist loon isn’t the one.

His newsletters were racist and bigoted. Bottom line. You don’t align with David Duke because he’s got a great line about Iraq or the gold standard.

I dont care who David Duke is a supporter of. If you are voting to be in a popular crowd, please turn in your registration card. If he wrote those newsletters, that would be one thing. But since he didnt, its another thing altogether. I will vote for the lesser of the evils. Even if all of the things posted on HA were true about RP, I find it hard to vote for a republican nominee that wants amnesty, or a republican nominee who wants to take my guns away. The fact that its come to this calls for desperate measures. If there isnt a conservative running for a third party by the time of my primary, i will vote for RP.

Remember, the newsletter was started when he was in office. Then he went back to his medical profession. That is when those newsletters came out, when he wasnt in politics at all. You can take his word that he has no clue, or you can assume he did and allowed people to write things under his name which he, through his policies, obviously doesnt believe. Its up to you since no one was there to witness it.

The fact that its come to this calls for desperate measures. If there isnt a conservative running for a third party by the time of my primary, i will vote for RP.

You can justify it however you like, but you’re openly supporting a racist. And you won’t ever be able to convince anyone otherwise. That’s the nice thing that makes these little comment back and forth games fun. You’re scrambling to make excuses for a disgusting racist. That’s one of the many reasons why you aren’t taken seriously.

No, I am not openly supporting a racist. I frankly dont care what you think, nor anyone else. You want to accuse people of racism, whom you dont know, and whom you have never met, fine. You live with that. Frankly, I consider the charge of calling someone a racist as serious and I wouldnt just throw that around. Apparently though, the meaning of “racist” has evolved recently from thinking whites or some other group is superior to others due to their skin color, to simply saying something about a race, true or untrue, which people dont like.

Remember, its important if a longshot candidate might somehow be associated with a person who is a racist, but if a candidate hires, in a paid position, someone who wants to open our borders and transform our nation, drastically changing policy, drastically destroying our economy, its no big deal.

Yes, we get it, you trot out these same links and quotes whenever a RP article comes up on Hotair. I really dont understand why you even post in the RP stories. You obviously hate the guy, and you never listen to reason when some of the things you post are patently wrong or blatantly misquoted. WE GET IT.

Do you have proof he wrote the newsletters? I would like to see it. And you assumption is so stupid that it baffles the mind. You think a politician would allow a newsletter to go out to followers with racist crap in it, when he plans to run for congress again?

And I am sorry, you are obviously of the new breed of republicans who could care less about the core beliefs of conservatives, but rather only needs a candidate to support god, hate the gays, and hate abortion. The conservative party I know and love supports gun ownership, supports smaller government, supports reducing taxes and supports national security (border control). Anything past that is icing on the cake. Apparenty to you, there is to cake, only icing.

Remember, its (not) important if a longshot candidate might somehow be associated with a person who is a racist, but and if a candidate hires, in a paid position, someone who wants to open our borders and transform our nation, drastically changing policy, drastically destroying our economy, its no big deal.

muyoso on January 31, 2008 at 7:25 PM

I dunno, it’s been 8 years, maybe he’s changed his tune but I doubt it.

I am not going over this again. This conversation is months old, and you are trying to jump in way late. Go read about the entire newsletters controversy, including RP’s responses. After you have done that, then come back and discuss it. He has addressed that specific interview as well. We discussed this months ago.

First, i dont think those are the only two options, and I dont know. I am not going to sit here and claim I know things like the rest of the people on this board. I dont claim to know if he is a racist or not, I dont claim to know if he wrote the newsletters or not. I wasnt there, I am not going to claim I know things I dont. Thinking about the entire thing rationally, if that is possible, its hard to see how he could have known about them and allowed them to continue, and looking at his voting record, there doesnt seem to be anything to suggest he is a racist. Frankly, either way, I support his policies.

about the Financial side of these things which have cornered Paul into a trap:

So he either lied to the government so he could avoid paying taxes or he lied to all of us about knowing what was going on with the newsletters. And something tells me that he did both. He set his own trap and willingly walked right into it.

You think a politician would allow a newsletter to go out to followers with racist crap in it, when he plans to run for congress again?

Yes. It seems exceedingly likely that he was seeking to expand the libertarian base after his failed 88 run. He appears to have done this by reaching out to neoconfederates, racists, segregationists, and various other highly disturbing communities.

You see, Paul had only listed himself on the payroll then he could still have some amount of plausible deniability and say, “Hey, I know I drew a salary, but I trusted my surrogates and they ended up doing things unbeknownst to me. I deplore their actions. Blah, blah, blah.” Actually, I think that’s pretty close to what he has said.

But he put his wife and his daughter on the payroll, and I think we can all make a pretty educated guess as to why: tax reasons. That way he could spread the burden between 3 people and he wouldn’t have to give back so much of it. The only problem with that is now he has two other people who are extremely close to him that have to say they didn’t know what was going on either. And if they say that, well, then what were they doing on the payroll besides providing a tax shelter for Dr. No?

Or, he could have not known about them at all, since he was a full time doctor. And upon coming back to congress he saw them and was like, WTF. Then he had a choice to throw his friend under the bus, Lew Rockwell, and look stupid for not knowing what was going on with his newsletter, or just take responsibility for what was in them and let the voters decide. he did the latter. This of course is speculation, and frankly is real stupid to even have to speculate about crap like this. I sure wish he didnt have this baggage, or I sure wish the GOP would actually run a goddamn conservative. Of course, neither of those things seemed to have happened.

You think a politician would allow a newsletter to go out to followers with racist crap in it, when he plans to run for congress again?

When racists and conspiracy theorists are his core constituents, yes, I do think that.

And I am sorry, you are obviously of the new breed of republicans who could care less about the core beliefs of conservatives, but rather only needs a candidate to support god, hate the gays, and hate abortion.

Oh. You mean he lied to cover up the fact that he’s really a bigot? Got it.

Thinking about the entire thing rationally, if that is possible, its hard to see how he could have known about them and allowed them to continue

Unless, of course, he actually did write them and he holds those exact beliefs. But that would be crazy to assume! Imagine, a newsletter bearing someone’s name yet having absolutely no connection to their positions. I must be nuts.

I dont think so lowly of his intelligence, being a doctor, a veteran and a member of congress for 20 years, to think anyone could have a plan so stupid.

His plan (if true) would not have been stupid but unwise. Attracting new members to increase the weight of the political block is standard policy. Speak their language to get them in, then have them check that particular ideology at the door for a bigger one: libertarianism. Unfortunately, as you may note from some of his supporters, it seems that they are able to maintain both collectivism and non-collectivism at the same time. Cognitive dissonance doesn’t seem to be a problem for many of his supporters.

What do you base your contention that a majority of his supporters are conspiracy theorists and racists? Do you have ANY proof for this, or is that you read a few stories online and didnt have either the honesty to compare those few to the vast majority of even those who donated to his campaign?

OK, so I got your type of conservative wrong, you seem to be much closer to where I am. What type of conservative are you, what issues are important to you, and who do you support?

BTW, please dont address anymore comments towards me, because I am watching the debate and I will not respond. So I guess if you want to just attack me, go ahead, but I wont be responding or reading it.

Holy cow. When I lived in Midland in the early 80s I was invited to a klan meeting by a customer at the safeway where I worked. I declined, but I wish I had taken the card she offered me and publicized the time and place of the meeting.

I not sure that he intended to run again at the time of the newsletters. Either way I don’t know enough. So I’m not asserting it as fact, just my take. He certainly has done some things for political expedience.

What do you base your contention that a majority of his supporters are conspiracy theorists and racists?

How about the fact that Ron Paul has been a regular guest on the Alex Jones radio show? How about the fact that wherever I see Ron Paul For President patrols — like the 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica, CA — more than 50% of the entourage has a “9/11 is an Inside Job” placard? And how about the fact that at stormfront.org 580,785 the Ron Paul Revolution thread has 580,785 views?

I must be imagining things.

What type of conservative are you, what issues are important to you, and who do you support?

The staunch variety. My top issues for a presidential candidate are illegal immigration, border security, and preemptive action against terror-supporting territories. I support no remaining GOP candidate as they are all phony-baloney jabronis.

I am regularly astounded by your ability to stand your ground against the RPDS here at the Air. Keep the faith! I, too, just want a real conservative.

By the way, ’76, I dare say Paul’s knowledge surpasses all who normally post here, though from what I’ve read of your posts, perhaps you’re not so far behind. I appreciate your level-headed answers and I clearly see your true conservatism shining thru. Who you supporting right now?

By the way, ‘76, I dare say Paul’s knowledge surpasses all who normally post here, though from what I’ve read of your posts, perhaps you’re not so far behind.

Bwaaaaaahahahahaha. Awesome. Paulbots are hilarious when they try to defend their Chosen Leader. It’s like Yogi Bear trying to convince Ranger Smith that he has no idea where the pic-a-nic basket he’s eating from came from.

Hey, Boo Boo, I had nothing to do with the newsletters bearing my name.

By the way, ‘76, I dare say Paul’s knowledge surpasses all who normally post here, though from what I’ve read of your posts, perhaps you’re not so far behind. I appreciate your level-headed answers and I clearly see your true conservatism shining thru. Who you supporting right now?

I’ve listened to a significant amount of Paul’s message. I think some of it is quite perceptive, but they are several aspects of his message that are either mis-representations of our history, or have been shown to be non-optimal in practice. I don’t desire to rail against him, but I see him more as a political pendulum swing then a stable long-term position. Even taken as the best translation – ie a Jeffersonian revival, Jeffersonian politics had some very negative ramifications. Paul never addresses those.

To answer your question I’m more of an issues voter, than a specific guy voter. But I clearly favor Mitt over McCain. I have no love lost with McCain. I do understand all the 2nd amendment concerns with Mitt, but I think he has tried to reassure voters he has no intent to interfere in that realm.

Anybody bothered to give the old blowhard Andy Sullivan a call to let him in on the news. I’m sure he’s just “shocked”. “SHOCKED!” He’s such twit. First he backed Paul now he’s over there shilling for McMexico. Some conservative he turned out to be, huh?